TWO
STATES EASE BALLOT ACCESS FOR 2004 ONLYREDISTRICTING
= SERENDIPITY IN GEORGIA AND NORTH CAROLINA

Georgia
and North Carolina still have not drawn legislative district boundaries. Therefore,
both states have been forced to ease requirements for minor parties, or independent
candidates, or both, but only for 2004.

North
Carolina: on February 9, the Board of Elections postponed the primary
from May 4 to July 20, because the legislative district boundaries aren’t
drawn yet. The Board also canceled the presidential primary. And the Board
moved the independent candidate petition deadline, for all office, from June
11 to July 6.

The State
Board had also postponed the primary in 2002, for the same reason (the legislative
district boundaries weren‘t drawn yet). However, in 2002, the Board had not
extended the independent candidate petition deadline (except they had extended
it for candidates for the legislature). The reason the Board extended the
independent deadline for all office this year is that an independent candidate
for the U.S. Senate, Paul DeLaney, had sued the Board over its failure to
extend the deadline in 2002.

DeLaney’s
brief pointed out that the 4th circuit has repeatedly said independent
petition deadlines cannot be earlier than primary day. Although DeLaney’s
lawsuit is still pending, it is obvious that the Board of Elections didn’t
want to get sued again. The DeLaney lawsuit was sponsored by the Coalition
for Free & Open Elections (COFOE). COFOE members’ dues made this lawsuit
possible.

Although
July 6 is still early, it is the latest independent deadline in North Carolina
history. In the 1920’s, almost all states had independent petition deadlines
in September or October of the election year. But North Carolina never had
an independent petition deadline in the second half of the year, until now.

The change
will help Ralph Nader if he attempts to get on the North Carolina ballot as
an independent.

Although
the Board did not lower the number of signatures needed for an independent
candidate, it is likely that an independent candidate for the legislature
could sue for a reduction, if the district boundaries aren’t settled quite
soon. Obviously, independent candidates for the legislature can’t circulate
their petitions until the boundaries are known. The independent petition for
legislative office is 4% of the number of registered voters, a severe burden.

Georgia:
on February 10, a 3-judge U.S. District Court overturned the state’s legislative
district boundaries. Larios v Cox, 1:03-cv-693. On February 20, the
same three judges refused to reconsider their decision. On February 26, the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the decision.

The implications
for ballot access are that the state must now lower the number of signatures,
for legislative candidates, in proportion to the amount of time lost. Georgia
only permits petitions for district and county office to be circulated from
mid-January to mid-July. If the new districts aren’t in place until mid-April,
for example, the number of signatures must be cut 50%, since 50% of the available
petitioning time was lost. This principle was set by the 11th circuit,
in an unreported 1981 case, Citizens Party of Georgia v Poythress. It
was re-iterated in a U.S. District Court decision in 2002, Parker v Barnes,
also unreported.

The Georgia
reduction will have no effect on statewide or U.S. House petitioning. Georgia
petitions for U.S. House and state legislature are 5% of the registered voters,
such a severe burden that no minor party has qualified for U.S. House since
the law was created in 1943.

One Libertarian,
Philip Bradley, is determined to qualify this year for U.S. House, in the
13th district. He already has 500 signatures, but needs 11,874.
The average petition requirement for U.S. House in Georgia this year is 14,452
signatures. Bradley is lucky to be living in the district with the smallest
requirement. The 13th district encompasses outer suburbs of Atlanta.

The basis
for the last month’s judicial decision was that the Democratic-controlled
legislature had created districts in which Democratic-leaning districts were
underpopulated, and Republican-leaning districts were overpopulated. The spread
was 10%. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has let state legislative districts
vary in population by as much as 10% in the past, the purpose was to keep
towns and counties together, if possible. The judges in the Larios case
said the 10% leeway rule couldn’t be used if the motivation is simply partisan
advantage. The judges gave the state until March 1 to draw new boundaries,
but the legislature has failed to meet that deadline.

The judges
just appointed a special master (a retired federal judge) to draw new boundaries.
Then the U.S. Justice Department must approve the new lines.

SIMILAR
BREAK MAY OCCUR IN MASS.

On February
24, a 3-judge U.S. District Court invalidated legislative district lines in
Massachusetts. Black Political Task Force vGalvin, 02-11190. Massachusetts
also has difficult petition requirements, particularly for members of qualified
minor parties seeking a place on their own party’s primary ballots. If new
districts are not drawn quickly, some relief from normal petitioning requirements
may be won here also.

BLANKET
PRIMARIES

Alaska:
last year, the Green and Republican Moderate Parties won a lawsuit, saying
they may have a blanket primary if they wish. Although the Republican Moderate
Party is no longer on the ballot, the decision will have a great effect on
this year’s primary anyway. Recently, the Democratic, Alaskan Independence,
and Libertarian Parties decided to participate in a blanket primary as well.

This
means that, unless last year’s decision is overturned by the State Supreme
Court, Alaska will again print two primary ballots. One will contain only
Republican candidates. This ballot can be chosen by Republican and independent
voters.

The other
primary ballot will contain the names of all candidates seeking the nomination
of the Democratic, Alaskan Independence, Green or Libertarian Parties. The
top vote-getter from each party will advance to the November election. Any
voter may choose this ballot.

Washington:
on February 23, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal
in Reed v Democratic Party of Washington State, 03-801.The
9th circuit had ruled that if the state’s qualified political parties
don’t’ want to nominate by blanket primary, they can’t be forced to use that
system.

The Washington
State Grange (a farmers’ organization) has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to save the blanket primary. Since the Grange filed its appeal with the Supreme
Court later than the state did, the Supreme Court hasn’t acted on the Grange’s
appeal yet. But it is virtually certain that the Supreme Court won’t hear
the Grange’s appeal either. Washington State Grange v Democratic Party,
03-1040.

The Washington
state legislature will probably pass a new form of primary by March 12. One
proposal, SB 6226, would let each voter vote one party’s primary ballot only.
The voter would be given primary ballots of all the qualified parties, and
in the privacy of the voting booth would choose one.

SB 6226
passed its first committee hurdle on February 25. It would end the requirement
that the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, must
appear on primary ballots. Current law puts them on the blanket primary, and
requires them to poll 1% of the primary vote, in order to appear on the general
election ballot. However, to compensate, SB 6226 would make increase the statewide
petition requirement from 200 signatures to 1,000.

GOOD
BILLS GAIN

Georgia:
HB 355, which makes it easier for minor parties candidates to run for the
U.S. House, passed the House Government Operations Committee on February 19,
2004. The bill provides that if a party is qualified statewide, it is also
qualified automatically for U.S. House. It also eases the legislative petitions
somewhat.

Illinois:
SB 2123, which would let a qualified party wait until September 2 to certify
the names of its presidential and vice-presidential candidates, passed all
committee hurdles on February 26. The Republican Party needs this bill to
place its national ticket on the ballot this year. The bill only applies to
2004.

Kentucky:
HB 428 passed the House on February 26. It exempts minor party and independent
presidential candidates from a restriction passed last year. That restriction
is that independent and minor party candidates must file a declaration of
candidacy by April 1 of an election year. If such a restriction were applied
to presidential candidates, it would probably be held unconstitutional.

INDIANA
BILL LOSES

On February
2, the Indiana House voted down an amendment to HB 1360 that would have lowered
minor party and independent candidate petitions from 2% of the last vote for
Secretary of State, to one-half of 1%. Democrats were almost evenly split
on the idea (22 yes; 24 no). But Republicans were strongly against it (4 yes,
40 no).

NEW
ACCESS BILLS

Alabama:
SB 100, by Senator Hank Sanders, would let the nominees of unqualified parties,
and independent candidates, obtain a place on the November ballot with no
petition, if they pay the filing fee.

Alaska:
HB 429 would expand the definition of "party", from one which polled
3% for Governor (or which has registration of the same number), to one which
polled 3% for any statewide office in a gubernatorial election year.

Connecticut:
bill 123 would provide that if a minor party polls 2% for Governor, it is
qualified to nominate for all offices in the state in the next election, with
no petitions needed. Currently, until a party polls 20% for Governor, it is
only on the ballot automatically for those particular offices for which it
polled 1% at the last election.

Connecticut
(2): bill 127 would provide that a party doesn’t lose its qualified status
in a particular district race, just because the boundaries of that district
changed due to redistricting.

Connecticut
(3): bill 5173 would reduce petitions from the lesser of 7,500 or 1% of the
last vote cast, to the lesser of 7,500 or one-half of 1% of the last vote
cast. The bill would have little effect on statewide petitions, but would
ease petitioning for congressional and legislative districts.

Tennessee:
HB 3043 and SB 3233 would let candidates who use the independent petition
procedure, choose a partisan label that would be printed next to their names
on the ballot. Currently they can only have the label "independent".

VOTING
MACHINE AUDIT TRAIL BILL

HR 2239,
the Congressional bill that would require an audit trail for touch-screen
voting machines, now has 118 co-sponsors: 109 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and
one independent. However, Congressman Bob Ney (R-Ohio) still refuses to hold
hearings.

INSTANT-RUNOFF
GAINS

California:
In 2002, the voters of San Francisco passed a measure for Instant-Runoff Voting
in city elections. The city was under legal obligation to use the new system
in November 2003, but it did not do so because the voting technology wasn’t
ready for it.

During
the second week of March, the manufacturer of San Francisco’s vote-counting
technology, ESS, will demonstrate that the machines are now ready. California
elections officials will visit the company’s factory in Rockford, Illinois,
for these tests. Assuming the machines pass the tests, IRV will be in place
for the city’s supervisoral elections in November 2004.

Minnesota:
the State Senate passed SF 1613 on February 23. It lets one city, Roseville,
use IRV for city elections in 2004. The vote was 38-26.

Washington:
HB 2669, which would let Vancouver use IRV, passed the House on February 13,
and passed the Senate Government Operations Committee on February 25.

Canada:
the Law Commission will soon send a recommendation to the House of Commons
that Canada adopt the type of proportional representation now used in Germany.

FLORIDA
PETITION WIN

On February
4, a State Appeals Court ruled that the Florida Constitution protects petitioning
in shopping malls. State of Florida v Wood, 1D03-1553. However, the
mall is asking the State Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

In 1980,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that each state’s state courts may decide this
issue for their own state. Nothing in the free speech provisions of the U.S.
Constitution protects First Amendment activity on private shopping mall property.
But a state’s own Constitution may do so. When petitioning or leafleting rights
are won in state courts, it is always on the theory that shopping malls have
become the equivalent of old-time publicly-owned town squares and parks.

MORE
LAWSUIT NEWS

California:
on February 18, a State Superior Court refused to restrain the use of touch-screen
voting machines. Plaintiffs had charged they are vulnerable to hackers. March
v Diebold Election Systems.

District
of Columbia: on February 10, a registered Green Party voter filed a lawsuit
against the Board of Elections, for refusing to count write-in votes in the
Green Party’s presidential primary held in January. Best v D.C. Board of
Elections, D.C. Court of Appeal, 04-AA45.

Florida:
on February 11, a state Circuit Judge ruled that Congressman Robert Wexler
does not have standing to challenge the use of touch-screen voting machines
that have no audit trail. Wexler will appeal. Wexler v Hood, 50-2004-ca-491,
15th jud. Circuit.

Illinois:
on February 18, an independent candidate for the legislature filed a lawsuit
in U.S. District Court against the state’s petition requirements for independent
candidates. Illinois requires independent candidates for the legislature to
submit a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast, by December of the
year before the election. Lee v Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 04-3042,
central district. This lawsuit is sponsored by the Coalition for Free &
Open Elections (COFOE).

Louisiana:
on February 19, a State District Court refused to place Al Sharpton on the
Democratic presidential primary ballot. Sharpton v McKeithen, 516773J,
19th dist. The law required a certified check for $1,125 for ballot
access. Sharpton’s check wasn’t certified. His campaign manager had then tried
to file a new check, but he arrived at the State Capitol Building ten minutes
too late.

New
York: on February 3, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff refused to require
the state to hold a presidential primary for the Independence Party. State
Committee of the Independence Party v Berman, 03-4123, sou. dist. The
judge did not reach the merits of the case; he found that the case was flawed
procedurally.

Ohio:
on February 5, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost denied an injunction
to require elections officials to hold a primary for the Libertarian Party,
on the basis that the party filed the lawsuit too late for that kind of relief.
Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell, c2:04-08. The party still hopes
to win declaratory relief and an order putting its nominees on the November
ballot. The lawsuit challenges the state’s early petition deadline for new
parties, its mandatory primary for newly-qualifying parties, and its hyper-technical
rules for petition format.

Oregon:
on February 11, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee,
upheld a law banning paying initiative petition circulators on a per-signature
basis. She said the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence showing that
paying circulators per hour injures proponents. Prete v Bradbury, 03-6357.

national:
on February 11, several presidential candidates from 2000 sued the Federal
Election Commission for failing to rule on their complaint against the Commission
on Presidential Debates. Plaintiffs include John Hagelin, Pat Buchanan and
Ralph Nader. The FEC has not acted in the complaint, which was filed in June
2003. Hagelin v FEC, 04-202HHK. The case was assigned to Judge Henry
Kennedy, a Clinton appointee. In the meantime, on February 19, still another
complaint was filed with the FEC, against the Commission on Presidential Debates,
by the new Open Debates Commission.

COFOE
MEETING

The annual
Board meeting of the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (COFOE) will be
April 3, in the Green Party hq in Washington, D.C.

State
governments administered, and paid for, nine of the primaries mentioned above.
The Democratic Party administered and paid for the primaries in Michigan,
New Mexico, South Carolina and Utah. The 13 primaries mentioned above were
all held in January and February. There will be more primaries in March, April,
May and June. The chart above lists only primaries, not caucuses. The Democratic
Party does not recognize Lyndon LaRouche as a Democrat, so he was barred from
the primaries that the Democratic Party administered.

REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

Bush

uncommitted

Wyatt

Ashby

Bosa

Buchanan

Rigazio

w-i for Dem

Missouri

117,165

3,831

1,269

981

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

N.Hamp.

53,962

-
-

153

264

841

836

803

9,274

Oklahoma

59,577

-
-

6,621

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Tenn.

94,406

4,494

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Wisconsin

158,677

1,207

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

TOTAL

483,787

9,532

8,043

1,245

841

836

803

9,274

All of these Republican
primaries were administered by state governments. The far-right column "w-i
for Dem" means "write-in votes for Democratic presidential candidates".
In Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin, voters were free to vote in any primary
they desired. In New Hampshire, registered Republicans could only vote in
the Republican primary, but registered independents could vote in either primary.
In Oklahoma, independents could not vote in any presidential primary, and
registered Republicans could not vote in any primary except the Republican
primary. Oklahoma bans write-in votes. Therefore, the only means by which
registered Republicans in Oklahoma could vote against President Bush, was
to vote for Bill Wyatt. This explains why Wyatt polled over 10% in Oklahoma,
despite his very limited campaign.

LIBERTARIAN
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

Nolan

Badnarik

uncommitted

Perez

Diket

Missouri

875

- -

740

160

147

Wisconsin*

1,490

1,414

401

- -

- -

TOTAL

2,363

1,497

1,133

160

147

*The Wisconsin totals
have been updated from the print edition of BAN.
In both of these primaries, any voter was free to choose any party’s primary
ballot. 1,922 voters cast a valid vote in the Missouri Libertarian primary.
In 2000, 1,049 voters did so. In Wisconsin, no Libertarian presidential primary
was held in 2000.

2004
PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE

REQUIREMENTS

SIGNATURES COLLECTED

DEADLINE
later method

FULL PARTY

CAND.

LIB'T

GREEN

NAT LAW

CONSTI.

REFORM

Alabama

41,012

5,000

300

0

0

*800

0

Aug
31

Alaska

(reg)
6,937

#2,845

already
on

already
on

0

0

0

Aug
4

Arizona

16,348

est
#10,000

already
on

*4,500

0

0

0

Jun
9

Arkansas

10,000

1,000

*600

*125

0

*50

0

Aug
2

California

(reg)
77,389

153,035

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

can’t
start

Aug
6

Colorado

(reg)
1,000

pay
fee

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

July
5

Connecticut

no
procedure

#7,500

0

already
on

0

*200

*0

Aug
7

Delaware

(reg)
*259

5,184

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

227

Aug
21

D.C.

no
procedure

est.
#3,600

can't
start

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
17

Florida

be
organized

93,024

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

Sep
1

Georgia

37,153

#37,153

already
on

*3,500

0

0

0

July
13

Hawaii

677

3,711

already
on

already
on

already
on

*50

0

Sep
3

Idaho

10,033

5,017

already
on

*2,600

already
on

already
on

0

Aug
31

Illinois

no
procedure

#25,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Jun
21

Indiana

no
procedure

#29,553

already
on

0

0

0

0

Jul
1

Iowa

no
procedure

#1,500

425

0

0

*25

0

Aug
13

Kansas

16,714

5,000

already
on

*200

0

*100

already
on

Aug
2

Kentucky

no
procedure

#5,000

0

0

0

*120

0

Aug
26

Louisiana

est.
(reg) 140,000

pay
fee

1,369

855

23

39

2,900

Sep
7

Maine

25,260

#4,000

0

already
on

0

0

0

Aug
9

Maryland

10,000

est.
28,000

in
court

already
on

0

*finished

0

Aug
2

Mass.

est.
(reg) 38,000

#10,000

already
on

already
on

0

*33

1,469

July
27

Michigan

31,776

31,776

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

July
15

Minnesota

112,557

#2,000

0

already
on

0

0

0

Sep
14

Mississippi

be
organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

Sep
3

Missouri

10,000

10,000

already
on

0

0

0

0

July
26

Montana

5,000

#5,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

*3,100

already
on

July
28

Nebraska

4,810

2,500

already
on

4,350

0

0

0

Aug
24

Nevada

4,805

4,805

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

July
9

New Hamp.

13,260

#3,000

0

0

0

*finished

0

Aug
11

New Jersey

no
procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

0

July
26

New Mexico

2,422

14,527

already
on

already
on

0

*50

0

Sep
7

New York

no
procedure

#15,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
17

No. Carolina

58,842

est
100,000

already
on

*9,100

0

100

0

*Jul
6

North Dakota

7,000

#4,000

0

0

0

0

0

Sep
3

Ohio

32,290

5,000

in
court

0

0

1,500

0

Aug
19

Oklahoma

51,781

37,027

*6,000

0

0

0

0

Jul
15

Oregon

18,864

15,306

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

Aug
24

Penn.

no
procedure

*25,697

*0

*0

*0

*0

*0

Aug
2

Rhode Island

16,592

#1,000

0

already
on

0

*0

0

Sep
3

So. Carolina

10,000

10,000

already
on

*already
on

*0

already
on

already
on

Jul
15

South Dakota

8,364

#3,346

*1,500

0

0

*finished

0

Aug
3

Tennessee

41,322

25

0

0

0

0

0

Aug
19

Texas

45,540

64,077

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

May
24

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

*already
on

0

Sep
3

Vermont

be
organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

Sep
16

Virginia

no
procedure

#10,000

0

0

0

0

0

Aug
20

Washington

no
procedure

#200

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
25

West Va.

no
procedure

#12,963

*2,200

0

0

0

0

Aug
2

Wisconsin

10,000

#2,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

can't
start

Sep
14

Wyoming

3,644

3,644

already
on

0

0

0

0

Aug
17

TOTAL
STATES ON

27

*23

*11

*13

7

-

# allows partisan label.
* entry changed since last B.A.N."(reg.)" means a party must have a certain number of registered voters.
All dates in "deadline" column are 2004.
Prohibition Party is on in Colorado.
Socialist Party has 100 signatures in New Jersey.

ADLAI
STEVENSON AND RALPH NADER

Most
Americans aren’t old enough to remember the 1952 presidential election. Therefore,
most Americans have no idea that a political party sometimes nominates a candidate
who has not sought its nomination. This, in turn, leads to confusion about
Ralph Nader’s current relationship with the Green Party. As has been reported
in the press, Nader announced on February 22 that he intends to run for president
as an independent this year.

In 1952,
President Harry Truman resolved not to seek re-election, and he asked Illinois
Governor Adlai Stevenson to seek the Democratic nomination. On March 17, Stevenson
told him, "No". Instead, Stevenson filed to run for re-election
as Governor of Illinois. Stevenson was renominated for that office on April
16, 1952. The day after the primary, he said that since he had just been renominated
for Governor, "I could not possibly accept the nomination for any other
office." Truman, believing that Stevenson could not be persuaded to run
for president, then endorsed Vice-President Alben Barkley for president.

Certain
individuals continued to promote a "draft" for Stevenson, but on
July 20, Stevenson urged the draft committee to cease its activity. However,
a few days later, the Democratic National Convention opened in Chicago. As
the host Governor, Stevenson addressed the convention. His speech was so well
received, and the other potential presidential candidates seemed so much less
appealing, Stevenson changed his mind and let himself be nominated. The Democratic
Party did, of course, nominate him, but he lost the general election to General
Dwight Eisenhower.

Even
though Ralph Nader announced last October that he would not seek the Green
Party nomination, this is no barrier to his receiving that nomination. Many
leaders of the party are working to draft him. Peter Camejo, who has twice
been the Green candidate for Governor of California, is on the Green presidential
primary ballot in California, and holds himself out as a placeholder for Nader.

The Green
Party’s webpage says, "Mr. Nader announced his independent candidacy
on February 22, but there remains a possibility he could win the Green nomination
at the party’s National Convention in Milwaukee, June 23-28." Of course,
the party’s website also acknowledges that other individuals are seeking the
nomination. Of the others, the individual who is campaigning the hardest is
David Cobb, of Eureka, California.

Theresa
Amato, Nader’s campaign manager, says on the Nader campaign website, "We
are aiming to be on the ballot in every state. In 2000, Ralph was identified
on ballot access lines: as the candidate of Greens in some places, as an independent
in others and as the nominee of small parties in others to make it as easy
as possible to get on the ballot. We plan to do the same this year. We want
people from all over the country to have more choices and voices in this election
and that means being on the ballot in as many states as possible in any legal
manner."

Besides
the Greens, other parties that might nominate Nader include the Reform Party,
the Natural Law Party, and several one-state parties such as the Mountain
Party of West Virginia and the Independence Party of New York.

Nader
has not started petitioning anywhere yet, and he has not announced who his
stand-in vice-presidential candidate will be. On February 26-27, he campaigned
in Texas, which has the earliest independent presidential petition deadline
of any state. However, petitions cannot start to circulate in Texas until
March 9.

SOCIALIST
EQUALITY PARTY

On January
30, the Socialist Equality announced that it had nominated Bill Van Auken
for president, and Jim Lawrence for vice-president. See the party’s website
at www.wsws.org
for more information. The Socialist Equality ran a presidential candidate
in 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996, but not 2000. Before 1996 it was called the
Workers League.